Skip to main content
Search for Indicators

All Data

Indicator Gauge Icon Legend

Legend Colors

Red is bad, green is good, blue is not statistically different/neutral.

Compared to Distribution

an indicator guage with the arrow in the green the value is in the best half of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the yellow the value is in the 2nd worst quarter of communities.

an indicator guage with the arrow in the red the value is in the worst quarter of communities.

Compared to Target

green circle with white tick inside it meets target; red circle with white cross inside it does not meet target.

Compared to a Single Value

green diamond with downward arrow inside it lower than the comparison value; red diamond with downward arrow inside it higher than the comparison value; blue diamond with downward arrow inside it not statistically different from comparison value.

Trend

green square outline with upward trending arrow inside it green square outline with downward trending arrow inside it non-significant change over time; green square with upward trending arrow inside it green square with downward trending arrow inside it significant change over time; blue square with equals sign no change over time.

Compared to Prior Value

green triangle with upward trending arrow inside it higher than the previous measurement period; green triangle with downward trending arrow inside it lower than the previous measurement period; blue equals sign no statistically different change  from previous measurement period.

More information about the gauges and icons

County: Placer

Health / Weight Status

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Weight Status

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults who are Overweight or Obese

Current Value:
59.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 59.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 66.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 71.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (62.3%), Placer has a value of 59.6% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(62.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (67.7%), Placer has a value of 59.6% which is lower and better.
US Value
(67.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System
Compared to the prior value, Placer (59.6%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (66.2%).
Prior Value
(66.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Children who are Overweight for Age

Current Value:
12.0%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (13.9%), Placer has a value of 12.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(13.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (12.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (12.0%).
Prior Value
(12.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Teens who are Overweight or Obese

Current Value:
19.8%
(2019-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (31.2%), Placer has a value of 19.8% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(31.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (19.8%) is less and better than the previously measured value (39.0%).
Prior Value
(39.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer

Health / Wellness & Lifestyle

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Health / Wellness & Lifestyle

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Child and Teen Self-Reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better

96.8%
(2013-2014)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (94.8%), Placer has a value of 96.8% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(94.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (96.8%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (96.9%).
Prior Value
(96.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Frequent Physical Distress

Current Value:
9.9%
(2019)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 9.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 9.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,121 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (11.3%), Placer has a value of 9.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(11.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0%), Placer has a value of 9.9% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (9.9%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (10.8%).
Prior Value
(10.8%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Insufficient Sleep

Current Value:

County: Placer Insufficient Sleep

31.3%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 31.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 32.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 34.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 31.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 34.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (31.1%), Placer has a value of 31.3% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(31.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (33.0%), Placer has a value of 31.3% which is lower and better.
US Value
(33.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (31.3%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (31.2%).
Prior Value
(31.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (26.7%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(26.7%)

County: Placer Poor Physical Health: 14+ Days

Current Value:
10.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 10.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 10.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (10.9%), Placer has a value of 10.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer Self-Reported General Health Assessment: Good or Better

91.7%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 91.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 85.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 83.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (86.0%), Placer has a value of 91.7% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(86.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (91.7%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (91.9%).
Prior Value
(91.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Self-Reported General Health Assessment: Poor or Fair

13.1%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 13.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 13.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 22.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,074 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the US Value (16.1%), Placer has a value of 13.1% which is lower and better.
US Value
(16.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.

County: Placer

Community / Civic Engagement

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Community / Civic Engagement

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Voter Engagement

Current Value:

County: Placer Voter Engagement

78.1%
Percent of adults
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 78.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 71.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 63.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (66.2%), Placer has a value of 78.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(66.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (78.1%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (74.0%).
Prior Value
(74.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Voter Turnout: Presidential Election

Current Value:
88.4%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 88.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 82.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 79.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (80.7%), Placer has a value of 88.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(80.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (88.4%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (84.2%).
Prior Value
(84.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (58.4%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(58.4%)
<div>SDOH-07: Increase the proportion of the voting-age citizens who vote</div>

County: Placer

Community / Crime & Crime Prevention

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Community / Crime & Crime Prevention

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adult Arrest Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Adult Arrest Rate

22.6
Arrests per 1,000 population 18+
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 22.6 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 28.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 37.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (25.1), Placer has a value of 22.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(25.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (22.6) is less and better than the previously measured value (24.5).
Prior Value
(24.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Homicide

Current Value:
2.3
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2018-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 2.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 32 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 2.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 7.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.3.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 495 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.1), Placer has a value of 2.3 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(5.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.6), Placer has a value of 2.3 which is lower and better.
US Value
(6.6)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (2.3) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (2.7).
Prior Value
(2.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.5), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.5)
<div>IVP-09: Reduce homicides <strong>(LEADING HEALTH INDICATOR)</strong></div>

County: Placer Hate Crime Offenses

Current Value:

County: Placer Hate Crime Offenses

18
Offenses
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (18) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (7).
Prior Value
(7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Juvenile Arrest Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Juvenile Arrest Rate

2.7
Arrests per 1,000 population aged 0-17
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 2.7 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.8.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (2.8), Placer has a value of 2.7 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(2.8)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (2.7) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (1.9).
Prior Value
(1.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Violent Crime Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Violent Crime Rate

248.0
Crimes per 100,000 population
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 248.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 449.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 621.3.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (493.1), Placer has a value of 248.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(493.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (380.7), Placer has a value of 248.0 which is lower and better.
US Value
(380.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Federal Bureau of Investigation
Compared to the prior value, Placer (248.0) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (180.9).
Prior Value
(180.9)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Community / Demographics

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Community / Demographics

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Average Household Size

Current Value:

County: Placer Average Household Size

2.60
Persons per household
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (2.90), Placer has a value of 2.60.
CA Value
(2.90)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.60), Placer has a value of 2.60.
US Value
(2.60)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Foreign Born Persons

Current Value:

County: Placer Foreign Born Persons

12.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (26.5%), Placer has a value of 12.0%.
CA Value
(26.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (13.7%), Placer has a value of 12.0%.
US Value
(13.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Population Over Age 65 (Count)

Current Value:
81,151
People
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Veteran Population

Current Value:

County: Placer Veteran Population

7.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (4.7%), Placer has a value of 7.9%.
CA Value
(4.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (6.6%), Placer has a value of 7.9%.
US Value
(6.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Community / Public Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Community / Public Safety

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Age-Adjusted Death Rate due to Motor Vehicle Traffic Collisions

6.9
Deaths per 100,000 population
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.4 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 20.1.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (10.7), Placer has a value of 6.9 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(10.7)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.0), Placer has a value of 6.9 which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.0 in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.9) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (6.3).
Prior Value
(6.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (10.1), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(10.1)

County: Placer Alcohol-Impaired Driving Deaths

Current Value:
30.2%
Percent of driving deaths with alcohol involvement
(2017-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 30.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 30.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 30.2% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 33.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,116 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (26.7%), Placer has a value of 30.2% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(26.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (26.3%), Placer has a value of 30.2% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(26.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (30.2%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (30.3%).
Prior Value
(30.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Bicycle-Involved Collision Rate

Current Value:
0.2
Collisions per 100,000 population
(2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 0.2 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 16.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 26.0.
CA Counties
(2022)
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (0.3), Placer has a value of 0.2 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(0.3)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (0.2) is less and better than the previously measured value (18.5).
Prior Value
(18.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Community / Social Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Community / Social Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Children in Single-Parent Households

Current Value:
14.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 14.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 14.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 28.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.4%), Placer has a value of 14.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (24.9%), Placer has a value of 14.9% which is lower and better.
US Value
(24.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People 65+ Living Alone

Current Value:

County: Placer People 65+ Living Alone

24.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 24.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 25.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 24.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 27.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.0%), Placer has a value of 24.0% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(22.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (26.4%), Placer has a value of 24.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(26.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People 65+ Living Alone (Count)

Current Value:
19,491
People
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Social Associations

Current Value:

County: Placer Social Associations

7.3
Membership associations per 10,000 population
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 7.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 6.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 4.6.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 7.3 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 10.8 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.9.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (6.0), Placer has a value of 7.3 which is higher and better.
CA Value
(6.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (9.1), Placer has a value of 7.3 which is lower and worse.
US Value
(9.1)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (7.3) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (7.3).
Prior Value
(7.3)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Substantiated Child Abuse Rate

Current Value:
3.1
Cases per 1,000 children
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (6.1), Placer has a value of 3.1 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(6.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.2), Placer has a value of 3.1 which is lower and better.
US Value
(8.2 in 2021)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is Children's Bureau
Compared to the prior value, Placer (3.1) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (3.0).
Prior Value
(3.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (8.7), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(8.7)

County: Placer

Community / Transportation

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Community / Transportation

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Mean Travel Time to Work

Current Value:

County: Placer Mean Travel Time to Work

27.6
Minutes
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 27.6 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.6 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 31.0.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 27.6 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 24.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 27.8.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,131 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (29.2), Placer has a value of 27.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(29.2)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (26.7), Placer has a value of 27.6 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(26.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Solo Drivers with a Long Commute

Current Value:
39.0%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 39.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 42.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 39.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 32.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 41.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (41.6%), Placer has a value of 39.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(41.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (36.4%), Placer has a value of 39.0% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(36.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (39.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (38.9%).
Prior Value
(38.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Workers Commuting by Public Transportation

Current Value:
0.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 0.7% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 0.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 0.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 0.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 0.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 0.1%.
U.S. Counties
(2015-2019)
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (3.6%), Placer has a value of 0.7% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(3.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (3.8%), Placer has a value of 0.7% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(3.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (5.3%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(5.3%)

County: Placer Workers who Drive Alone to Work

Current Value:
71.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 71.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 73.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 76.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 71.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 79.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 82.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (68.4%), Placer has a value of 71.7% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(68.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (71.7%), Placer has a value of 71.7%.
US Value
(71.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Workers who Walk to Work

Current Value:

County: Placer Workers who Walk to Work

1.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 1.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 2.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 1.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 1.2% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 2.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 1.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (2.4%), Placer has a value of 1.2% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(2.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (2.4%), Placer has a value of 1.2% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(2.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Economy / Employment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Economy / Employment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Employer Establishments

Current Value:

County: Placer Employer Establishments

11,689
Number of Establishments
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (11,689) is greater  than the previously measured value (11,385).
Prior Value
(11,385)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Female Population 16+ in Civilian Labor Force

Current Value:
55.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 55.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 54.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 50.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 55.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 54.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 49.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (57.8%), Placer has a value of 55.3% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(57.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (58.5%), Placer has a value of 55.3% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(58.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Population 16+ in Civilian Labor Force

Current Value:
57.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 57.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 55.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 49.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 57.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 55.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 50.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (59.3%), Placer has a value of 57.9% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(59.3%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (59.6%), Placer has a value of 57.9% which is lower and worse.
US Value
(59.6%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Size of Labor Force

Current Value:

County: Placer Size of Labor Force

196,763
Persons
(January 2024)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (196,763) is greater and better than the previously measured value (195,236).
Prior Value
(195,236)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Total Employment

Current Value:

County: Placer Total Employment

157,907
Paid Employees
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (157,907) is less  than the previously measured value (162,738).
Prior Value
(162,738)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Total Employment Change

Current Value:

County: Placer Total Employment Change

-3.0%
(2020-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of -3.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than -4.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than -6.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of -3.0% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than -2.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than -5.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (-5.6%), Placer has a value of -3.0% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(-5.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (-4.3%), Placer has a value of -3.0% which is higher and better.
US Value
(-4.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (-3.0%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (1.2%).
Prior Value
(1.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Unemployed Workers in Civilian Labor Force

Current Value:
4.5%
(January 2024)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 4.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 6.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 8.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 4.5% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on non-seasonally-adjusted data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (5.7%), Placer has a value of 4.5% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(5.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (4.1%), Placer has a value of 4.5% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(4.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (4.5%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (4.0%).
Prior Value
(4.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Economy / Food Insecurity

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Economy / Food Insecurity

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Adults Receiving Food Stamp Benefits

Current Value:
17.8%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 17.8% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 28.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 23.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (28.5%), Placer has a value of 17.8% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(28.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.

County: Placer Child Food Insecurity Rate

Current Value:
6.3%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 6.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (13.5%), Placer has a value of 6.3% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(13.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.8%), Placer has a value of 6.3% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.3%) is less and better than the previously measured value (7.9%).
Prior Value
(7.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Food Insecure Children Likely Ineligible for Assistance

40%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 40% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 29% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 34%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 40% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 30%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,134 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (34%), Placer has a value of 40% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(34%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (25%), Placer has a value of 40% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(25%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (40%) is less and better than the previously measured value (47%).
Prior Value
(47%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Food Insecurity Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Food Insecurity Rate

6.9%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 6.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 11.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 13.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,140 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (10.5%), Placer has a value of 6.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(10.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.4%), Placer has a value of 6.9% which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (8.0%).
Prior Value
(8.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Households Receiving SNAP with Children

Current Value:
46.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the CA Value (53.1%), Placer has a value of 46.9%.
CA Value
(53.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (47.9%), Placer has a value of 46.9%.
US Value
(47.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Households Receiving SNAP with Children (Count)

Current Value:
3,486
Households
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Projected Child Food Insecurity Rate

Current Value:
12.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 12.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 19.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 12.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 18.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 23.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (16.8%), Placer has a value of 12.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(16.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (12.2%) is less and better than the previously measured value (20.9%).
Prior Value
(20.9%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Projected Food Insecurity Rate

Current Value:
9.7%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 9.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 9.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 14.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 16.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,142 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (12.1%), Placer has a value of 9.7% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(12.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (9.7%) is less and better than the previously measured value (13.6%).
Prior Value
(13.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Students Eligible for the Free Lunch Program

Current Value:
23.7%
(2022-2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 23.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 51.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 61.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 23.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 47.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 63.2%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 2,710 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (52.6%), Placer has a value of 23.7% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(52.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (42.8%), Placer has a value of 23.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(42.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (23.7%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (21.2%).
Prior Value
(21.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Economy / Homelessness

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Economy / Homelessness

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Point-in-Time Count of Unaccompanied Youth Under 25 Experiencing Homelessness

41
Persons
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (41) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (7).
Prior Value
(7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Point-in-Time Count of Veterans Experiencing Homelessness

42
Persons
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (42) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (40).
Prior Value
(40)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Sheltered Homeless

Current Value:

County: Placer Sheltered Homeless

342
Persons
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (342) is less and better than the previously measured value (357).
Prior Value
(357)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Total Homeless Population

Current Value:

County: Placer Total Homeless Population

750
Persons
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (750) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (708).
Prior Value
(708)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Unsheltered Homeless

Current Value:

County: Placer Unsheltered Homeless

408
Persons
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (408) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (351).
Prior Value
(351)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Economy / Housing & Homes

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Economy / Housing & Homes

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Chronic Homelessness Point-In-Time Count

Current Value:
214.0
(2015)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (214.0) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (152.0).
Prior Value
(152.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Homeowner Vacancy Rate

Current Value:

County: Placer Homeowner Vacancy Rate

0.7%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 0.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 0.7% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 1.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (0.9%), Placer has a value of 0.7% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(0.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.1%), Placer has a value of 0.7% which is lower and better.
US Value
(1.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Homeownership

Current Value:

County: Placer Homeownership

65.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 65.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 54.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 50.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 65.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 60.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 54.6%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (51.4%), Placer has a value of 65.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(51.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (57.8%), Placer has a value of 65.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(57.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Median Household Gross Rent

Current Value:
$1,874
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of $1,874 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than $1,289 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than $1,919.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value ($1,856), Placer has a value of $1,874 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
($1,856)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($1,268), Placer has a value of $1,874 which is higher and worse.
US Value
($1,268)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Median Monthly Owner Costs for Households without a Mortgage

$832
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of $832 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than $652 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than $773.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value ($732), Placer has a value of $832 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
($732)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($584), Placer has a value of $832 which is higher and worse.
US Value
($584)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Mortgaged Owners Median Monthly Household Costs

Current Value:
$2,804
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of $2,804 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than $2,128 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than $2,724.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 54 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value ($2,759), Placer has a value of $2,804 which is higher and worse.
CA Value
($2,759)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($1,828), Placer has a value of $2,804 which is higher and worse.
US Value
($1,828)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Mortgaged Owners Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Housing

32.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 32.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 36.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 39.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (37.4%), Placer has a value of 32.9% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(37.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (27.2%), Placer has a value of 32.9% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(27.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (32.9%) is less and better than the previously measured value (33.7%).
Prior Value
(33.7%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (25.5%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(25.5%)

County: Placer Overcrowded Households

Current Value:

County: Placer Overcrowded Households

2.1%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 2.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 5.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 7.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (8.2%), Placer has a value of 2.1% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(8.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (3.4%), Placer has a value of 2.1% which is lower and better.
US Value
(3.4%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Renters Spending 30% or More of Household Income on Rent

55.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 55.4% which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 53.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 55.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 55.4% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 44.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 49.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (54.4%), Placer has a value of 55.4% which is higher and worse.
CA Value
(54.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (49.9%), Placer has a value of 55.4% which is higher and worse.
US Value
(49.9%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (25.5%), the target has not been met.
HP 2030 Target
(25.5%)

County: Placer Severe Housing Problems

Current Value:

County: Placer Severe Housing Problems

16.0%
(2016-2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 16.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 21.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 16.0% which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 14.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,141 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (25.7%), Placer has a value of 16.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(25.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (16.7%), Placer has a value of 16.0% which is lower and better.
US Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (16.0%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (16.3%).
Prior Value
(16.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Economy / Income

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Economy / Income

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Gender Pay Gap

Current Value:

County: Placer Gender Pay Gap

$0.65
Cents on the dollar
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of $0.65 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $0.72 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $0.69.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value ($0.74), Placer has a value of $0.65 which is lower and worse.
CA Value
($0.74)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($0.72), Placer has a value of $0.65 which is lower and worse.
US Value
($0.72)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Households Above the Federal Poverty Level and Below the Real Cost Measure

14.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 14.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 22.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 26.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 34 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (24.0%), Placer has a value of 14.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(24.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.

County: Placer Households Below the Real Cost Measure

Current Value:
20.0%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 20.0% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 32.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 39.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 34 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (34.0%), Placer has a value of 20.0% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(34.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.

County: Placer Households that are Above the Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE) Threshold

67.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 67.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 54.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 50.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (57.0%), Placer has a value of 67.2% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(57.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (67.2%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (67.5%).
Prior Value
(67.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Households that are Asset Limited, Income Constrained, Employed (ALICE)

26.2%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 26.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 32.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 34.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (31.0%), Placer has a value of 26.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(31.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (26.2%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (24.0%).
Prior Value
(24.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Income Inequality

Current Value:

County: Placer Income Inequality

0.445
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 0.445 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.461 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 0.481.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 0.445 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 0.445 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 0.470.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (0.490), Placer has a value of 0.445 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(0.490)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (0.483), Placer has a value of 0.445 which is lower and better.
US Value
(0.483)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Median Household Income

Current Value:

County: Placer Median Household Income

$109,375
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of $109,375 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $76,148 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $63,996.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of $109,375 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $60,831 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $52,521.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value ($91,905), Placer has a value of $109,375 which is higher and better.
CA Value
($91,905)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($75,149), Placer has a value of $109,375 which is higher and better.
US Value
($75,149)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Per Capita Income

Current Value:

County: Placer Per Capita Income

$54,004
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of $54,004 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $37,717 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $32,012.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of $54,004 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than $32,340 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than $28,112.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value ($45,591), Placer has a value of $54,004 which is higher and better.
CA Value
($45,591)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value ($41,261), Placer has a value of $54,004 which is higher and better.
US Value
($41,261)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Economy / Poverty

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Economy / Poverty

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Children Living Below 200% of Poverty Level

Current Value:
13.5%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 13.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 35.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 44.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 42 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 13.5% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 36.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 44.4%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 828 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (35.4%), Placer has a value of 13.5% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(35.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (36.5%), Placer has a value of 13.5% which is lower and better.
US Value
(36.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (13.5%) is less and better than the previously measured value (17.6%).
Prior Value
(17.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Children Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
6.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 15.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 17.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 24.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,132 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (15.6%), Placer has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(15.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (16.7%), Placer has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
US Value
(16.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Families Living Below 200% of Poverty Level

Current Value:
12.3%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 12.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 23.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 29.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 12.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 25.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 32.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (22.5%), Placer has a value of 12.3% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(22.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (22.7%), Placer has a value of 12.3% which is lower and better.
US Value
(22.7%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Families Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
4.6%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 4.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 8.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 10.8%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 4.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,104 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (8.5%), Placer has a value of 4.6% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(8.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (8.8%), Placer has a value of 4.6% which is lower and better.
US Value
(8.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Households Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
6.6%
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 12.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (12.0%), Placer has a value of 6.6% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(12.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (6.6%) is less and better than the previously measured value (8.5%).
Prior Value
(8.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer People 65+ Living Below 200% of Poverty Level

Current Value:
20.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 20.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 27.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 31.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 42 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 20.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 26.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 32.0%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 828 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (27.7%), Placer has a value of 20.4% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(27.7%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (28.0%), Placer has a value of 20.4% which is lower and better.
US Value
(28.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (20.4%) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (18.3%).
Prior Value
(18.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People 65+ Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
7.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 7.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 10.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 7.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 9.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 12.8%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (11.0%), Placer has a value of 7.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(11.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (10.0%), Placer has a value of 7.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(10.0%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People 65+ Living Below Poverty Level (Count)

Current Value:
5,757
People
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People Living 200% Above Poverty Level

Current Value:
83.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 83.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 68.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 63.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 83.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 66.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 59.9%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (72.0%), Placer has a value of 83.8% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(72.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (71.2%), Placer has a value of 83.8% which is higher and better.
US Value
(71.2%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People Living Below 200% of Poverty Level

Current Value:
16.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 16.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 31.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 36.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (28.0%), Placer has a value of 16.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(28.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (28.8%), Placer has a value of 16.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(28.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People Living Below Poverty Level

Current Value:
6.8%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 16.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 6.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 17.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (12.1%), Placer has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(12.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (12.5%), Placer has a value of 6.8% which is lower and better.
US Value
(12.5%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (8.0%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(8.0%)

County: Placer Youth not in School or Working

Current Value:
1.2%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 1.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 1.2% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 1.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 2.7%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,130 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (1.5%), Placer has a value of 1.2% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(1.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (1.8%), Placer has a value of 1.2% which is lower and better.
US Value
(1.8%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Education / Childcare & Early Childhood Education

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Education / Childcare & Early Childhood Education

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Child Care Centers

Current Value:

County: Placer Child Care Centers

10.3
Per 1,000 population under age 5
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 10.3 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.1 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 5.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (8.1), Placer has a value of 10.3 which is higher and better.
CA Value
(8.1)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.0), Placer has a value of 10.3 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.0)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (10.3) is greater and better than the previously measured value (7.2).
Prior Value
(7.2)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer

Education / Educational Attainment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Education / Educational Attainment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer People 25+ with a Bachelor's Degree or Higher

Current Value:
42.4%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 42.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 24.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 19.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 42.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 20.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 16.5%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (35.9%), Placer has a value of 42.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(35.9%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (34.3%), Placer has a value of 42.4% which is higher and better.
US Value
(34.3%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer People 25+ with a High School Diploma or Higher

Current Value:
94.9%
(2018-2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 94.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 88.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 80.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 94.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 89.5% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 85.3%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,133 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (84.4%), Placer has a value of 94.9% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(84.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (89.1%), Placer has a value of 94.9% which is higher and better.
US Value
(89.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Education / School Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Education / School Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Student-to-Teacher Ratio

Current Value:

County: Placer Student-to-Teacher Ratio

21.6
Students per teacher
(2022-2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 21.6 which is in the 2nd worst quartile of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 21.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 21.9.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 21.6 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 13.9 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 15.7.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,125 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (21.9), Placer has a value of 21.6 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(21.9)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (15.4), Placer has a value of 21.6 which is higher and worse.
US Value
(15.4)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (21.6) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (21.5).
Prior Value
(21.5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Education / Student Performance K-12

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Education / Student Performance K-12

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer 11th Grade Students Proficient in English/Language Arts

67.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 67.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 50.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 43.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (54.8%), Placer has a value of 67.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(54.8%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (67.4%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (70.0%).
Prior Value
(70.0%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 11th Grade Students Proficient in Math

Current Value:
39.3%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 39.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 21.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 16.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (27.0%), Placer has a value of 39.3% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(27.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (39.3%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (40.6%).
Prior Value
(40.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 3rd Grade Students Proficient in English/Language Arts

57%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 57% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 37% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 31%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (42%), Placer has a value of 57% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(42%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (57%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (52%).
Prior Value
(52%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 3rd Grade Students Proficient in Math

Current Value:
61%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 61% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 38% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 32%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (44%), Placer has a value of 61% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(44%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (61%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (54%).
Prior Value
(54%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 4th Grade Students Proficient in English/Language Arts

60%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 60% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 40% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 33%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (44%), Placer has a value of 60% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(44%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (60%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (52%).
Prior Value
(52%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 4th Grade Students Proficient in Math

Current Value:
57%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 57% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 33% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 27%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (38%), Placer has a value of 57% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(38%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (57%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (49%).
Prior Value
(49%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 5th Grade Students Proficient in English/Language Arts

61.8%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 61.8% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 41.8% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 36.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (47.1%), Placer has a value of 61.8% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(47.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (61.8%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (59.1%).
Prior Value
(59.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 5th Grade Students Proficient in Math

Current Value:
48.9%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 48.9% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 24.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 20.0%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (31.6%), Placer has a value of 48.9% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(31.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (48.9%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (42.5%).
Prior Value
(42.5%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 6th Grade Students Proficient in English/Language Arts

61.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 61.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 38.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 34.1%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (45.1%), Placer has a value of 61.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(45.1%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (61.1%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (52.2%).
Prior Value
(52.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 6th Grade Students Proficient in Math

Current Value:
50.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 50.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 26.9% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 22.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (32.5%), Placer has a value of 50.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(32.5%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (50.4%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (39.2%).
Prior Value
(39.2%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 7th Grade Students Proficient in English/Language Arts

64.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 64.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 44.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 38.9%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (49.2%), Placer has a value of 64.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(49.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (64.4%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (64.3%).
Prior Value
(64.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 7th Grade Students Proficient in Math

Current Value:
47.4%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 47.4% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 28.1% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 23.3%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (32.0%), Placer has a value of 47.4% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(32.0%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (47.4%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (42.4%).
Prior Value
(42.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 8th Grade Students Proficient in English/Language Arts

60.6%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 60.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 41.2% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 37.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (46.6%), Placer has a value of 60.6% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(46.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (60.6%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (59.4%).
Prior Value
(59.4%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer 8th Grade Students Proficient in Math

Current Value:
45.1%
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 45.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 24.3% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 18.7%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (29.2%), Placer has a value of 45.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(29.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (45.1%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (39.1%).
Prior Value
(39.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer High School Graduation

Current Value:

County: Placer High School Graduation

91.1%
(2022-2023)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 91.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 87.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 84.5%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 57 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (86.2%), Placer has a value of 91.1% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(86.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (86.5%), Placer has a value of 91.1% which is higher and better.
US Value
(86.5% in 2020)
The regional value is compared to the national value. The source for the national value is National Center for Education Statistics
Compared to the prior value, Placer (91.1%) is less and worse than the previously measured value (91.6%).
Prior Value
(91.6%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.
Compared to the HP 2030 Target (90.7%), the target has  been met.
HP 2030 Target
(90.7%)

County: Placer

Environmental Health / Air

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Environmental Health / Air

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Annual Ozone Air Quality

Current Value:

County: Placer Annual Ozone Air Quality

5
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to Air Quality Index, Placer has a value of 5 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.
Air Quality Index
The American Lung Association (ALA) assigns grades A-F to counties (A=1; B=2; C=3; D=4; F=5), based on average annual number of days that ozone levels exceeded U.S. standards during the three year measurement period. The five-point grading scale was used for the distribution (Green = <2; Yellow = 2 - 3; Red = >3). The air quality data is collected by the EPA and summarized by the ALA.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (5) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5).
Prior Value
(5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is staying the same.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Annual Particle Pollution

Current Value:

County: Placer Annual Particle Pollution

5
(2019-2021)
Compared to:
Compared to Air Quality Index, Placer has a value of 5 which is in the worst 25% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 2 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 3.
Air Quality Index
The American Lung Association (ALA) assigns grades A-F to counties (A=1; B=2; C=3; D=4; F=5), based on average annual number of days that particle pollution levels exceeded U.S. standards during the three year measurement period. The five-point grading scale was used for the distribution (Green = <2; Yellow = 2 - 3; Red = >3). The air quality data is collected by the EPA and summarized by the ALA.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (5) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (5).
Prior Value
(5)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Recognized Carcinogens Released into Air

Current Value:
3,397
Pounds
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (3,397) is less and better than the previously measured value (3,797).
Prior Value
(3,797)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Environmental Health / Built Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Environmental Health / Built Environment

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Access to Exercise Opportunities

Current Value:
94.6%
(2024)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 94.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 85.7% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 76.2%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 94.6% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 64.0% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 47.1%.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,096 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (94.2%), Placer has a value of 94.6% which is higher and better.
CA Value
(94.2%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (84.1%), Placer has a value of 94.6% which is higher and better.
US Value
(84.1%)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (94.6%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (93.1%).
Prior Value
(93.1%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Access to Parks

Current Value:

County: Placer Access to Parks

74.1%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 74.1% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 69.6% while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 55.4%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (82.4%), Placer has a value of 74.1% which is lower and worse.
CA Value
(82.4%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (74.1%) is greater and better than the previously measured value (73.3%).
Prior Value
(73.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer Food Environment Index

Current Value:

County: Placer Food Environment Index

8.9
(2024)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 8.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 8.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 7.4.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to U.S. Counties, Placer has a value of 8.9 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50%  have a value higher than 7.7 while counties in the worst 25% have a value lower than 6.9.
U.S. Counties
The distribution is based on data from 3,108 U.S. counties and county equivalents.
Compared to the CA Value (8.6), Placer has a value of 8.9 which is higher and better.
CA Value
(8.6)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the US Value (7.7), Placer has a value of 8.9 which is higher and better.
US Value
(7.7)
The regional value is compared to the national value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (8.9) is greater and better than the previously measured value (8.7).
Prior Value
(8.7)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Proximity to Highways

Current Value:

County: Placer Proximity to Highways

2.3%
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 2.3% which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 3.4% while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 5.6%.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (6.6%), Placer has a value of 2.3% which is lower and better.
CA Value
(6.6%)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (2.3%) is not statistically different from the previously measured value (2.3%).
Prior Value
(2.3%)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.

County: Placer

Environmental Health / Toxins & Contaminants

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Environmental Health / Toxins & Contaminants

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer PBT Released

Current Value:

County: Placer PBT Released

5
Pounds
(2022)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (5) is less and better than the previously measured value (6).
Prior Value
(6)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer

Environmental Health / Weather & Climate

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer

Environmental Health / Weather & Climate

Value
Compared to:

County: Placer Daily Dose of UV Irradiance

Current Value:
4,461.0
Joule per square meter
(2020)
Compared to:
Compared to CA Counties, Placer has a value of 4,461.0 which is in the best 50% of counties. Counties in the best 50% have a value lower than 4,532.0 while counties in the worst 25% have a value higher than 4,680.5.
CA Counties
The distribution is based on data from 58 California counties.
Compared to the CA Value (4,541.0), Placer has a value of 4,461.0 which is lower and better.
CA Value
(4,541.0)
The regional value is compared to the California state value.
Compared to the prior value, Placer (4,461.0) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (4,037.0).
Prior Value
(4,037.0)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Number of Extreme Heat Days

Current Value:
46
Days
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (46) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (39).
Prior Value
(39)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Number of Extreme Heat Events

Current Value:
44
Events
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (44) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (35).
Prior Value
(35)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is increasing significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Number of Extreme Precipitation Days

Current Value:
20
Days
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (20) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (10).
Prior Value
(10)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.

County: Placer Weeks of Moderate Drought or Worse

Current Value:
47
Weeks per year
(2021)
Compared to:
Compared to the prior value, Placer (47) is greater and worse than the previously measured value (39).
Prior Value
(39)
Prior Value compares a measured value with the previously measured value. Confidence intervals were not taken into account in determining the direction of the comparison.
Over time, the Placer value is decreasing, not significantly.
Trend
This comparison measures the indicator’s values over multiple time periods.<br>The Mann-Kendall Test for Statistical Significance is used to evaluate the trend<br>over 4 to 10 periods of measure, subject to data availability and comparability.